Talk:Vampyrellida/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have read all the comments and fixed the article accordingly. However there is one comment I don't quite understand. "Found through genetic data" does not imply genomics, and nowhere in the source does it say that whole genome sequencing was used for the establishment of the clades; it only says that genetic data was used, which could mean anything from an entire genome to very small sequences of DNA. I hope this clarifies the situation.

Also, I am choosing to retain Cienkowski as the article's spelling because that's how the bibliography refers to him. I have no reason to oppose it.

As for the cladogram, I don't see fitting the full-width placement over the boxed placement as it is a small cladogram and only one group, Vampyrella, has a page and images of its own. When the rest of pages and images are uploaded, we may enlarge the cladogram and add images to it. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 12:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Citations of German papers need an English translation (|trans-title= ) and a language parameter (|language=German).

• Thalassomyxa is a genus, but is listed under "Families"?

• The drawings "The three distinct morphotypes of vampyrellid amoebae." are too small for the embedded captions to be legible (you could use |upright=2.5, say).

• Several images have captions that are not complete sentences, so they should not end with a dot.

• The indented but unnumbered and unbulleted list inside "Trophic diversity and feeding strategies" is non-standard and doesn't stand out well (probably won't work well on some browsers or small devices, either). Would suggest you number them, or remove the indentation and use some list wording like "Firstly, ...".

• "Trophic diversity and feeding strategies" is an instance of a heading containing "and", i.e. it covers two subjects. Suggest you have two sections; you could actually (per the above) have a named subsection for each of the feeding strategies, as they are quite important.

• "large or bulky prey": is there any difference?

• "the most famous strategy": is this relevant? If so, it belongs, cited and explained (how did it become famous?), in "History of discovery", along with the mention of vampires.

• "found through genetic data" – genomics, surely.

• "Cienkowski" - full name at first mention. I note that his article chooses the spelling Tsenkowsky.

• Fresenius, Cienkowski, Zopf: please gloss briefly who these guys are ("the German physician", etc).

• "a large vacuole that resembles a sucking motion": which means what exactly?

• Nothing to do with this GAN, but the Rhizaria navbox is overcomplex and hard to maintain, embodying as it does one particular hypothesis about the phylogeny (leaving aside the explicit incertae sedis); and it should not contain redlinks. Basically it's trying to do far too much in a group that has been reorganised repeatedly. It occupies almost the whole height of a large screen, and presumably takes two screen heights on a laptop. Needs to be radically simplified.

• Cladogram is a bit obscure with its "lineage B1" etc; these ought to be explained in a caption below the cladogram, or linked, or both. I can see "lineage B5" in the indented taxonomy list but none of the others, and where is B3?

• Cladogram would be more readable if enlarged (full-width) rather than boxed, and illustrated with suitable small images of the various clades.

• Spotchecks all ok.

• The PLOS one images (File:Vampyrellid morphotypes.png and the following 5 images) should each have a link to the license page https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright on Commons.

• Other images ok on Commons.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.